Blockers White 1-3 are up the front, holding back the Black Jammer and drifting forward as they do.White 4 is 8 feet behind them.Black 1-4 are at the back, 8 feet away.Black 1 rushes forward and hits out White 4 with a legal block. As this is happening White 1-3 are pushed 11 feet away.No Pack is called. No penalty.Black 1 rushes forward and catches up with White 1-3. Pack is called at the front. Black Blockers 2-4 are in-play but no longer in the Pack.White 4 re-enters the track, now only 3 feet in front of Black 2-4 and 12+ feet from Black 1 and White 1-3.No Pack is called. No penalty.Black 1 stops. White 4 drifts forward. Black 2-4, behind her, remain stationary. White 4 is called for a Failure to Reform. Pack is called at the front.

At the end of the jam, the White Captain called an Official Review requesting that one of the Black Blockers be issued a Failure to Reform penalty as they had not attempted to reform the Pack.

The Black skater who was best positioned to reform the Pack (Black 1) performed everything that was expected. For Black 2-4 to have reformed the Pack, they would have had to sprint past White 4 and bridge between Black 1 and White 4. As a result, the continued "No Pack" was not deemed to be the result of the actions of the Black team and no Failure to Reform was issued to Black 2-4. In essence, their inaction was deemed to have had no impact on the game, and thus didn't warrant a penalty.

Does that sound reasonable? Or should one of Black 2-4 have been issued a penalty as well?

During a no pack (split packs included) it is the responsibility of ALL blockers to reform the pack. If the pack didn't immediately reform and there were blockers who did not fulfill their responsibility to reform there will be penalties. Limited to one per team at a time though.

The whole thing about the blocker that's most able to reform is only to prioritize which blocker to penalize if there are multiple who did not meet the criteria for reforming.

Black 2-4 did not try to reform, and since the pack didn't immediately reform it had impact. So I would penalize one of them.

Black 2-4 did not try to reform, and since the pack didn't immediately reform it had impact.

Yes and no. They didn't try to reform, but their lack of attempt didn't impact the game or prolong the No Pack -- White 4's inaction was. Their inaction didn't delay the reformation of the Pack because they would have had to accelerate (from stopped) past White 4 (who was already moving) in order to make Pack. And before Black 2-4 had done that, either White 4 would have reformed the Pack or she'd have been issued a Failure to Reform and the Pack would exist again. As such, I wouldn't say it meets the criteria of 4.2.1: "if a Skater’s actions prevent or delay the reformation of a Pack, that Skater should be penalized."

Basically, do you give a Failure to Reform to someone who is in no position to reform and is not actively impeding an opponent? If they initiate a new block or hold a Jammer back (as in C4.21), then yes penalty because they've impacted the game, but if there's the same scenario (split Pack) but no Jammer and three of the blockers stand there while one races forward to reform, I would have thought that the three's inaction, while, yes, illegal, had no impact on the game because the Pack was going to reform regardless of what they did, so it would come under the catch-all "Penalties should not be assessed for actions that have little to no impact on the game or the Skaters".

If the consensus is "Nope, give a penalty to one of the standing-still skaters who was in no position to affect the outcome", I'll go with that, but I don't see the distinction between a no-impact Failure to Reform and a no-impact Forearms. Both are illegal, neither has an impact on the game, so why would one be penalised when the other is not?

Red Pivot is being blocked by White Pivot and White Blocker. White Pivot forces Red Pivot out of bounds, and Officials declare a No Pack situation. White Pivot and White Blocker immediately skate ahead of Red Pivot, who is now behind all other Blockers. Red Pivot still does not return to the track. As a result, the Pack is unable to be reformed.

Outcome: Red Pivot is penalized and instructed to return to and remain on the track until another Red Blocker returns to the Pack.

Rationale: Red Pivot was able to legally re-enter the track once all other Blockers were ahead of them. Red Pivot is not required to return to the track until they can legally do so, and is not required to skate clockwise in order to find a legal re-entry point. In this scenario, however, Red Pivot had a legal opportunity because all other Blockers were ahead of them. Further, Red Pivot did not heed the warning from the Officials, and thus should be penalized for preventing a Pack from reforming. As Red Pivot is the final remaining Red Blocker, they must remain on the track so that a Pack can be formed.

Keep in Mind: If White Pivot or White Blocker had not skated forward, one or both of them would have been penalized instead of Red Pivot for preventing a Pack from reforming by forcing the only Opposing Blocker to remain out of bounds.

Quote

If the consensus is "Nope, give a penalty to one of the standing-still skaters who was in no position to affect the outcome", I'll go with that, but I don't see the distinction between a no-impact Failure to Reform and a no-impact Forearms. Both are illegal, neither has an impact on the game, so why would one be penalised when the other is not?

The short answer is: "because it didn't reform immediately" Immediately Reforming (with any number of blockers doing Illegal No Impact things like tapping on the Jammer) is the Illegal No Impact version of your forearms example. Not immediately reforming and at least 1 person not doing the reformation requirement is the Illegal Impact version of your forearms example. You're trying to use a Jammer as the impact spectrum, but the impact spectrum is weather or not it reforms immediately (aka a longer no pack situation).

I would issue a penalty to the blocker 2-4 that was closest to me. C4.25 makes it clear in the Keep In Mind Section that any non reforming blockers are equally responsible, not just the closest one.